Author
Topic: Corporations are not people (Read 7883 times)

well, they were a British company. they had a military component. they got into the governing of colonies and some pretty shady trade practices..so i'd have to say no.

they were the reason for the early corporate charters that limited the time and scope of a corporations existence. however....it is unlikely that a constitutional scholar could justify those charters. other than regulation of interstate commerce, the constitution is pretty much hands off on business.

the founders were not unified in their beliefs. if you read them, it's pretty amazing that they wrote and implemented the constitution that we have. i think one of the main reasons the document is short and does not address many of these specifics is because they didn't agree. they left resolution of conflicts to the congress (with lawmaking) and the judiciary. the expected congress to regulate and justice to judge things against the constitution. they also expected that the government would stay out of most things and the majority of regulation would be done by states.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I am having a real hard time accepting the 'personhood' of a corproration. I applaud the affirmation of free speech (there's a great piece of A. Scalia's decision I heard on Rush yesterday, but darned if I can find it) I don't think it's a good idea to treat corporations like people. I seriously doubt the founding fathers would approve of that at all. When all people have as much money and influence as huge corporations then I'll think about it ;)

you may have a point, but we do extend free speech to groups. the KKK, for example, can take out adds or support candidates and what they say and do is is protected. i don't see how you can pick and choose who is covered and who is not. that was always my problem with the McCain law.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

If I remember correctly corporations as we know them were not allowed under the constitution as originally framed and had to be chartered by congress for very specific purposes and periods of time.

can you find that for me?

I wish I could. That's why I qualified it with the "If I remember correctly" disclaimer - it's been a long time since I sat in history class, and it probably isn't clearly stated like that in the Constitution. I think I remember one particular example of a very specific charter being granted for the purpose of financing, constructing and maintaining the Brooklyn bridge. Corporations weren't allowed broad purposes and virtual immortality like they are today, but they were needed in cases like that of projects that were too large for individually held companies.

Corporations are necessary for all kinds of reasons today, and should have the same reasonable opportunities to try to make a profit as any other kind of business. They just aren't people.

Logged

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Samuel Clemens

you may have a point, but we do extend free speech to groups. the KKK, for example, can take out adds or support candidates and what they say and do is is protected. i don't see how you can pick and choose who is covered and who is not. that was always my problem with the McCain law.

I agree, Kathy, free speech is free speech, I just wish it wasn't upheld under the concept of 'personhood' for corporations.

most, if not all, of that money has been paid back and with interest. this is not about paying back money, it is about a government power grab by way of class warfare.

i can not say whether stabilizing the banking industry was a good thing. i know plenty of smart people who say it was necessary. my knee jerk reaction is "let them fail". that aside, the governments decision to bail out the banks does not give them license to regulate pay, or to nationalize companies by way of stock acquisition. same with the auto industry. they should have been let to fail, but bailing them out does not mean taking them over.

this is not Venezuela.

To have let the banking sector go bust was not an option, it would have caused chaos. It would have ended up with your local jewelry store not being able to borrow money to restock, with the knock on effect to the wholesaler, manufacturer etc ending up with people out of work,not being able to eat which would end up with more crime.It maybe okay for people living in the backwoods with plenty of 'attitude realignment tools' (a misnomer if I ever heard of one) but the average person in the street who doesn't 'carry concealed' or whatever,it would be a disaster. You may not like 'big government' (or do I detect a slight prejudice to which government?) but sometimes it takes federal government 'clout' to take charge and do something. It is okay to expound theories of the individuals 'inalienable' rights, but why did your contry become 'The United States of America? surely it was for the collective (I've finally managed to get bees back into the conversation, sorry!) good of the whole? If you had a earthquake in Oregon (God forbid) who would you want to come to your aid, an individual from Florida toting a Red Cross bag, although welcome they would be, or 'big government in Washington'? with all its resources? Big government is not all bad, left, centre or right. It just needs watching. (before it falls off the edge!) ;)

This has been another homily from across the pond. :)

Politics, I'm lov'in it! with apologies to MacDs or whatever.

PS. whats this about asprins and taxes?

« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 08:50:05 PM by cidersabuzzin »

Logged

Whats good for bees is usually good for mankind. Doesn't that mean sharing?The Ladies could still teach the Borg a thing or two!....and maybe us too, so long as we don't go too far to the left or right and fall off the edge...

saving the banks did not loosen credit. if that was the goal, it was a failure. there were also a good number of large banking institutions that were not in trouble. even if you accept that it was necessary to save the banks, that does not excuse the "stimulus program", bucking up the car industry and then buying into it, trying to prop up the failing home owners, etc. all of these programs have failed and have put us in debt that we may never be able to repay.

the key to surviving the aftermath of a disaster is being prepared. it is the job of the individual, local, and state governments to be prepared. only in the event of the state being so overwhelmed by the scope of the disaster should the federal government step in. the feds are not first responders. the only agency the federal government can send in as first responders is the coast guard. that's why the states have so many resources, including their own national guard units.

having worked with people from Florida toting red cross bags, i would be pleased to have them be among the 1st to show up. they are well prepared for disaster and quite efficient.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

How do you know? I've been able to secure credit for my business activities through all of this, else I would be unemployed, or worse. No one has a crystal ball, so it's only guess work (aka economic theory) as to how bad it would have been without it. I personally (and every businessman who is just trying to hang on until it's better) am very glad that it hasn't been any worse.

Every single year there are experts swearing that we are all going to hades in a handbag, and others that are so happy about our prospects that they're whistling zippity-do-dah out their bung holes - and everything in between.

It's usually hard to determine exactly what caused whatever happened last year much less predict the future - or what might of happened "if". Anyone who claims they can, but hasn't already made a bajillion dollars on speculation is either a poseur or deluded.

BTW, even people who HAVE made a bazillion off of speculation (the experts if there are any) often lose money on downturns.

Logged

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Samuel Clemens

banks are very risk averse right now. if you are established with yours, i'm sure that helped you a lot. if you were a new business trying to get credit, odds are you would have had a hard time of it. as it happens, it's one of obamas complaints. after bailing them out, they are not loaning as he had wanted. until he's done messing with them, this will probably continue to be the case.

Quote

No one has a crystal ball, so it's only guess work (aka economic theory) as to how bad it would have been without it.

i don't claim to have a crystal ball about the banks. maybe it was a thing that had to be done. about the stimulus and proposed tax hikes, we do know. we have had a number of recessions of varying degrees. we can look back and see what worked and what didn't. everything obama and congress have done, are things that history has shown us extend and deepen recessions...even to the point of causing depressions. economics can be complicated. learning from history is not.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

The key to surviving the aftermath of a disaster is being prepared. it is the job of the individual, local, and state governments to be prepared.

When the big one hits California and half the state falls into the Pacific, who do you call then? Big Arnie? No, probably the disaster people in Washington, who should be able to coordinate the other states resource's. As I said the people from Florida with Red Cross bags would be very welcome, my apologies to any Red Cross volunteers out there if that was the perception.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 10:40:41 AM by cidersabuzzin »

Logged

Whats good for bees is usually good for mankind. Doesn't that mean sharing?The Ladies could still teach the Borg a thing or two!....and maybe us too, so long as we don't go too far to the left or right and fall off the edge...

there is a difference between coordination of effort, which is what FEMA was designed for, and the expectation of rescue by the Feds. FEMA is another agency that probably should not exist. as it was originally designed, it was to facilitate the efforts and supplies getting to any large disaster. this meant things like helping the DOT communicate with the state and plan routs, etc. FEMA was not, and should not be, a first responder, social welfare agency, housing agency, or any of the other crap it is now doing and was blamed for not doing during Katrina.

if states elect bad leaders, they will have to live with the decision. it seems that the idea of personal responsibility is gone. WE are to blame if our leadership is bad. 40% turnout is considered good for an election. i think if only 40% care about who is in charge, perhaps the death of a few thousand in a disaster because of poor planning is pretty low? and maybe justified.

i watched your floods a couple of years ago. i heard your people say the same thing. "where is the government?" "why doesn't someone do something?" are we so conditioned to be helped that we can not help ourselves?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

there is a difference between coordination of effort, which is what FEMA was designed for, and the expectation of rescue by the Feds. FEMA is another agency that probably should not exist. as it was originally designed, it was to facilitate the efforts and supplies getting to any large disaster. this meant things like helping the DOT communicate with the state and plan routs, etc. FEMA was not, and should not be, a first responder, social welfare agency, housing agency, or any of the other crap it is now doing and was blamed for not doing during Katrina.

if states elect bad leaders, they will have to live with the decision. it seems that the idea of personal responsibility is gone. WE are to blame if our leadership is bad. 40% turnout is considered good for an election. i think if only 40% care about who is in charge, perhaps the death of a few thousand in a disaster because of poor planning is pretty low? and maybe justified.

i watched your floods a couple of years ago. i heard your people say the same thing. "where is the government?" "why doesn't someone do something?" are we so conditioned to be helped that we can not help ourselves?

if states elect bad leaders, they will have to live with the decision. it seems that the idea of personal responsibility is gone. WE are to blame if our leadership is bad. 40% turnout is considered good for an election. i think if only 40% care about who is in charge, perhaps the death of a few thousand in a disaster because of poor planning is pretty low? and maybe justified.

X:X X:X X:X

Kathyp I think you are getting close to the edge now! To suggest it is OK to loose 'a few thousand dead' for a political point is beyond the pale.( I think Saddam Hussein did that with the Kurds) Try telling that to the families who lost their love ones in Katrina, who also may have been one of the 40% who bothered to vote. Why do you 'Do' disasters if that is your underlying attitude? :-x

Logged

Whats good for bees is usually good for mankind. Doesn't that mean sharing?The Ladies could still teach the Borg a thing or two!....and maybe us too, so long as we don't go too far to the left or right and fall off the edge...

Ah, but that's not what she said. What she's talking about (at least it's what I got out of it) was that people don't pay attention to anything until the SHTF, and then, they complain because they don't have the government they want - well, if they didn't bother to vote, or get involved, how could they get the government they want, the response they want? Nevermind the people who expect the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. That isn't how the USA has prospered, it's prospered by the hard work of people trying to better themselves. Now we've got too many who think they should be cared for, and it's tipping the country into anarchy, really.

No one wants thousands dead. But thousands who die because they won't help themselves is no one's fault but their own.

To suggest it is OK to loose 'a few thousand dead' for a political point is beyond the pale

you miss my point. if people are not willing to participate in the political process, and if they are not willing to be pro-active in taking care of themselves, how much sympathy should we have for them?the people in NO who were injured/killed chose to stay. i have no problem with that choice. i have a problem with them demanding immediate rescue. the people of MS, who were actually hit by the hurricane, did not sit there crying and demanding help. when no one could get to them, the worked together and cleared roads and looked for survivors. the took care of each other until there was help. the state is not still demanding millions of tax payer dollars to put them back together.

i do disasters because people do need some help after. often there is no food, water, or power. there are injuries. people need a place to stay. the main reason i do it is because i do not think it is the job of the feds to do it. the more people who volunteer their time and money, the less (i hope) we will suffer the intrusion of the feds into states.

Quote

Ah, but that's not what she said. What she's talking about (at least it's what I got out of it) was that people don't pay attention to anything until the SHTF, and then, they complain because they don't have the government they want - well, if they didn't bother to vote, or get involved, how could they get the government they want, the response they want? Nevermind the people who expect the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. That isn't how the USA has prospered, it's prospered by the hard work of people trying to better themselves. Now we've got too many who think they should be cared for, and it's tipping the country into anarchy, really.

No one wants thousands dead. But thousands who die because they won't help themselves is no one's fault but their own.

thanks. that's exactly what i meant :-D

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

a couple of years ago i went to iowa. there had been a tornado that had wiped out 1/2 the town of parkersburg and there was some flooding. i had not planned on being there more than a week or so. as i came Cedar Falls, which is a sleepy little college town, the word went out that the river was rising. i was sent to open a shelter because the town was going to be evacuated. we took the college super dome and prepared for 5000 people to arrive. all night i sat there and waited for the people who had been evacuated to show up. very early in the morning a man wandered in looking for "the bus". i had no idea what he was talking about.

turns out, the town had gathered the school busses on the other side of the college and they were busing people to the river levee. the entire town and all the students who were back in town, had turned out to fill and place sandbags. they saved their town. not ONE person showed up at the evacuation center looking for help. not even children or students from other towns.

i ended up being there for 3 weeks because there was flooding along the river and people lost their homes, power, etc. the Midwest floods were the worst that had been seen in decades. the flooding went all the way down the Mississippi river and more damage was done than during Katrina. did you ever hear about it? probably not.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

"The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history."Winston Churchill

Quote from chronicle of Marcus Lucanus of the Roman civil war: Caesar said :"Here I abandoned peace and desecrated law; fortune it is you I follow. Farewell to treaties. From now on war is our judge!Caesar men cheered :" Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!

if states elect bad leaders, they will have to live with the decision. it seems that the idea of personal responsibility is gone. WE are to blame if our leadership is bad. 40% turnout is considered good for an election. i think if only 40% care about who is in charge, perhaps the death of a few thousand in a disaster because of poor planning is pretty low? and maybe justified.[/u]

i

Call me a bleeding heart liberal (if not already) the 'in bold,underlined' was my point. It varies from crisis to crisis not everyone is able bodied or bright enough to help themselves and therefore need the likes of you and your Red Cross bag to offer assistance. That assistance is very welcome and I would never decry it, but to suggest a thousand or so deaths is justifiable? What I was saying is crises of the magnitude of Haiti need government help, you agree? if you then had a crisis of your own on a similar scale I would want all the help I could get and leave the semantics till later.

Logged

Whats good for bees is usually good for mankind. Doesn't that mean sharing?The Ladies could still teach the Borg a thing or two!....and maybe us too, so long as we don't go too far to the left or right and fall off the edge...

to your underlined sentences. i am wondering if that is not what the leaders of these areas think. what can be the excuse for not planning when you know the risk to your area? i am not suggesting that the deaths are justified, only that the pols are negligent.

Quote

What I was saying is crises of the magnitude of Haiti need government help, you agree?

i did not say that Haiti did not need help. it Haiti had a functioning government and infrastructure, they probably would not need as much help. why do they not? we have pumped tons of money into Haiti. the UN has been there for years. what did they do with the money and aid? it is one of the poorest countries in our part of the word and that is their own doing.i applaud our efforts in this disaster. i have no idea what Haiti has to do with the domestic disasters we have had.

i am not sure what point you are trying to make, but apparently i have not been clear in mine. i'll try one more time :-)

our system is set up so that we work from the bottom up. local, state, then as a last resort, federal. local and state are the ones who identify risk and make plans. they have a multitude of tools to do their job. 1st responders, national guard, and federal money (unfortunately). they also have tremendous community resources. the federal government is supposed to have a very limited roll in our lives. it is not allowed to march into states and "help". it has to be invited in. we can not use our active duty military domestically, although that law has been skirted in the past. that's on of the reasons the coast guard is not part of the DOD.

the feds can come in to states under some very limited instances. i won't give you a long and boring lesson on our constitution....but a hurricane is not one of those instances. they would have happily helped if the governor had gotten her head out of her backside and asked for it.

my sister came up with a way to explain this to you guys. think of the EU as our united states. if you had a big storm in england, would you expect Germany to pop in and rescue you? would you want them popping in uninvited just because they thought maybe you were not up to the job? surly they would be glad to help if you asked, but i doubt your welcome an invasion.

it is not an exact analogy, but i hope it helps.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....